 |
We can see micro-evolution (variation within a species) - there is no question about the fact that it occurs - either from a scientific or Christian perspective. There never has been any evidence of macro-evolution (evolution to new species).Quote:
Originally Posted by nigel5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Behe to me sounds like a person in denial. He's been to a temple, he's been to roswel... but for some reason roswel's his fav :)
I agree - he appears to be a brilliant scientist, but when you read the book, he fails to apply the same logic to his conclusion regarding intelligent design and who the designer is, that he applies to his research.Quote:
Originally Posted by nigel5
Hmm... to me a variation in genetic make up is not a sign of evolution, that's all.( Tho as you said, there is tangible evidence) Mutation rarely produces a desirable trait, although some times it does but with obvious disadvantages. For example, sickle celled anaemia patients are immune to malaria.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
And on your connection between species? I completely agree. That's what ave been trying to tell some guy for a while... but for some reason he keeps on telling me to go look up a "science" book... :S
The fact remains. Judge Jones Said Intelligent Design (& by extension Creationism) is unscientific & based firmly in religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I saw only claims by the other user that someone had said this. I saw nothing which said that Judge Jones said it, nor any links to a source document, but even if a judge said it, I'd have to ask - are judges now making scientific decisions? When did that happen? That would be like having a hairdresser diagnose an irregular heartbeat!Quote:
Originally Posted by deist
BTW, maybe you did not notice, but Behe disassociates ID from creationism.
Have either of you (TJ, nigel) even bothered to read my sig? Apparently nigel thinks I'm a dude... never met a dude named "jillian", but whatever. And TJ has once again failed to read the post I refer to... the quotes in the post are from a link posted earlier in the thread, they are not my own words. Allow me to post it here, just in case you've somehow missed the gigantic arrow pointing to it:
If you'd like to read the site this information came from in the first place, here you go:Quote:
Quote:
Furthermore, they asserted that he deliberately aimed the publication of this book at the general public in order to gain maximum publicity while avoiding any peer-reviews from fellow scientists or performing new research to support his claims.
This means he intentionally published his book to the masses because he knew it would not hold up to peer review.
Quote:
Under cross examination, Behe conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred".[27] During this testimony Behe conceded that definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well.[28] Also while under oath, Behe admitted that his simulation modelling of evolution with Snoke had in fact shown that complex biochemical systems requiring multiple interacting parts for the system to function and requiring multiple, consecutive and unpreserved mutations to be fixed in a population could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible.
This is where he admits, under oath, there are no peer reviewed articles supporting his claim. He also admits he changed the definition of "theory" to fit his argument. That means it's not science. He also admits the mutations could happen, even if the environment wasn't ideal.
Quote:
"Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."
This means in order to accept his claims, you must believe in God. Belief in God is not science.
Quote:
Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition
This is where it is explained his view is religious, not scientific.
Quote:
"Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor “missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,” what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system."
This is where it is evidenced he ignores known evolution menthods in order to fit his claim. This also explains why his idea of "irreducible complexity" is incorrect.
Quote:
Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies""
Well, there you go!
Did he formally denounce his findings? No. Did he admit to manipulating his results and generally accepted scientific procedures and methods to make his idea work? Yes. A majority of these quotes are from what a judge ruled, which have not been skewed by Wiki. In fact, you can link to the fully published ruling by clicking the little blue numbers after each statement.
Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And nigel, there's no particular science book I have in mind for you to read, but at least one with peer-reviewed information and, oh, I don't know, facts in it would be nice. But I have a feeling I'm wasting my time, you have no intention of reading anything that might contradict the bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
Jillian,
First, I did read the post, but I assumed from your comments that you had something more substantial. I am surprised that you do not see the holes in your arguments. Let's examine this:
General
- You are going on someone's interpretation of the document rather than the document itself. This makes even the quotes that you gave subject to the bias of the author. To properly examine this, we would need to examine the original document and the context of the comments. If you have a link to the original document, then let's see it and let's see if it adds anything to the credibility of your arguments.
- A judge is in no position to make a determination as to whether ID is scientific. He can only decide upon the law.
- This does not address creationism though you try to make a link.
Specifics on your claims
1) This means he intentionally published his book to the masses because he knew it would not hold up to peer review.
RESPONSE: The excerpt that you gave does not support your claim. The quote only states that that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred". Your extrapolation is not validated by the quote, nor is it warranted.
2) He also admits he changed the definition of "theory" to fit his argument. That means it's not science. He also admits the mutations could happen, even if the environment wasn't ideal.
RESPONSE: No one denies mutations. The question is with respect to mutations which are beneficial and which are capable of transforming a creature from one species to another.
3) This means in order to accept his claims, you must believe in God. Belief in God is not science.
RESPONSE: No, the quote does not support your claims, and further I provided quotes to the contrary. Therefore, not having the original document in your case, and going on an interpretation or commentary vs two of his original books, even the quote is suspect.
4) This is where it is explained his view is religious, not scientific.
RESPONSE: See #3
5) This is where it is evidenced he ignores known evolution menthods in order to fit his claim. This also explains why his idea of "irreducible complexity" is incorrect.
RESPONSE: Again, it does not say that. You are providing your interpretation of someone else's interpretation. Further, this summary ignores the Smith-Orr and Coyne-Orr criterion.
Here is a very good place to look for a science book
Understanding Evolution
And it even has a section about why macro and micro evolution.
Evolution at different scales: micro to macro
If you read all the information on the Berkeley web site you should understand why evolution is the prevailing theory.
TJ, I have no desire to do your homework for you. The link I got the quotes from has references (or it did when I posted it), so if you would like further information, click away. I'm satisfied with my interpretations and statements. If you aren't, well, too bad, life is full of disappointments.
You don't like my answer so you gave me a disagree? I won't argue with you, so you give me a disagree? I think you need to familiarize yourself with the site rules and how the agree/disagree function is supposed to be used. I'd post a link to it, but again, I don't want to do your homework for you. :)Quote:
Tj3 disagrees: I went through the document and through your response. Rather than making demenaing remarks about those who disagree with you, your position would be better served by better validation of your claims.
I gave you a disagree because you have failed to properly validate your claims. I went to the link that you gave, as I pointed out, but you you appear to think that if I disagree with you, that I must not have "done my homework". That is exactly why I gave a "disagree".Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
My suggestion is to stop assuming that everyone must agree with you if they "do their homework", and be prepared to address the challenges.
Right, you gave me a disagree because you didn't like my answer. I never said if you did your homework you would agree with me, only that you would see where my claims came from. If that wasn't the answer you were looking for, well, tough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
And thank you, but I am free to pick my battles and decide which arguments I would like to participate in. This one simply isn't worth it to me because frankly, I don't care if you agree with me or not. So my suggestion to YOU is to stop making assumptions about other's intentions, and get over yourself when someone doesn't feel like engaging you in an argument.
I did my homework, and still disagreed with you because I did not find the basis for your claims to be adequate. You assumed that I did not do my homework. If you had additional validation, I would have been quite willing to reconsider. You chose not to provide additional validation, which is your choice - why not leave it at that?Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
I don't care if you don't wish to engage, but as for making assumptions about others intentions, please note that goes both ways.Quote:
So my suggestion to YOU is to stop making assumptions about other's intentions, and get over yourself when someone doesn't feel like engaging you in an argument.
Right, my choice not to provide additional validation, which is when you decided to give me a "disagree". My this has gotten off topic. If you would like to continue discussing if your "disagree" was given appropriately, feel free to PM me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I disagreed when you suggested that I did not do my homeowrk and that your links were adequate. I stand by that disagreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
I have no need to discuss further. It is your choice to provide additional backup or not. I am happy to leave it at that. I trust that you are also.
Really no, the heathen and unsaved of the world will not accept the truth. It has always been that way, when Christ hisself was here there were many that would not accept him, and since there is really no "proof" I have ever seen that has showed evolution has having any valid proof, I would merely laught at someone wanting other Christian proof, find your own, then come back,
Post your bull about your beleifs in your area, don't come to a christian site with little but beliefs that are not proved and can't even be accept on faith as Christianity can.
Jillian,
1)Bacteria flagellum needs it motory action to survive... Indeed there would be a change in function... WHICH MEANS, the bacteria would be immobile!
2) Its really sad that you came to the conclusion that am an idiot and I have no clue about Evolutionary fundamentals, if you knew me personaly u'd really be surprised! Jus saying :)
Now...
1) Evolution claims that life started via the combination of gases in the atmosphere. This occurred due to the harsh conditions that were present at the time, to be specific... lightning energized molecules in the atmosphere which in turn molecularly combined to form the now 20 amino acids that exist. Really hard to do that in a lab... but somehow it occurred in nature.
2) These amino acids "miraculously" combined to form protein. Where the information was obtained to do this puzzles me. BUt anyway, they did. From here these proteins conformed to their 3 dimensional arrays accidentally too... to give you *drum roll*... simple prokaryotic cells with no organelles, no enclosed nucleic material, and surprisingly a flagella with full motory action so advanced we barely understand it on a nano scale!
3) Mitochondria, which is the power house of the cell, somehow existed on its own at this time (hahaha)... So what happened a prokarotic cell that needed food engulfed the mitochondria... (LOL)... But instead of the mitochondria being ingested by cell enzymes it somehow integrated with the cell!! Wow... never happens these days... why? Ask you're so called scientists!LOL
Chuck, you've been here a long time, you know this is a public forum and anyone with any belief system is permitted to comment anywhere they see fit. Beyond that, it's been suggested an atheism section should be made, but apparently that suggestion has fallen on deaf ears.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:35 AM. |